Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnion 94-01-11IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN CAMBRIAN COLLEGE AND ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION AND IN THE MATTER OF GRIEVANCE # 92D706 (SUPPORT) O.B. SHIME, Q.C. CHAIRPERSON D. CAMELETTI NOMINEE R. COCHRANE NOMINEE APPEARANCES M. HINES COUNSEL, and others for the Employer C. DI FRANCESCO COUNSEL, and others for the Union A hearing in this matter was held on December 1 & 2, 1993 at Sudbury, Ontario. AWARD At the outset of this hearing an issue arose between the parties as to the scope of this grievance and the limits of the board of arbitration's jurisdiction with the College arguing for a limited scope and the Union arguing for a broader scope. There is no disagreement that the actual wording of the grievance that was filed is broad in scope. It alleges a violation of Article 1.2 of the collective agreement which requires the College to endeavour to give preference to full-time over part- time assignment, and to convert part-time to full-time assignments where feasible, subject to operational requirements. The grievance also requests that two full-time bargaining unit positions be posted and appropriate compensation paid. The issue more narrowly defined is whether students or part- time employees who shelve books in the library in the Learning Resource Centre were part of the grievance. The College throughout took the position that two positions only were in issue - one being a Clerk B general position which had been posted in July 1992 and not filled and the other being a combination of two Technical A positions. Susan Pratt, a staff relations officer with the College testified that during the third step meeting of the grievance procedure on November 17, 1992 the Union advised her that students shelving books were not part of the - 2 - grievance procedure. The Union's witness indicated that she had no recollection of the statement but did not deny that the statement was made. On November 23, 1992 following the meeting Ms. Pratt in a letter referring only to the Clerk B General position and the combination of the 'two Technical A positions denied the grievance which was then referred to arbitration by the Union. No mention is made of the students shelving books. On April 14, 1993, Ms. Pratt, in a memo to the Union reconfirmed the position taken by the Union at the third step meeting that part-time employees who are hired to shelve books are not part of the grievance. On May 17, 1993, Ms. L. Jovic, chief steward, in a memorandum advised that students who shelve books in the library would be part of the grievance. It appears that this is the first time that that issue had arisen between the parties. The most telling evidence as to the nature of the grievance is the testimony of Louise Jovic who stated that when she filed the grievance the nature of the dispute concerned the Clerk B position which had been vacated by Mr. D. Rodrigues and which was being filled by part-time employees and the two Technician A positions which were filled by two employees working a total of forty-eight hours. There is no indication that the grievance when originally - 3 - filed embraced the students shelving books in the library and indeed the Union's evidence suggests that despite the broad language of the grievance there was no intent to include the students shelving books when the grievance was originally filed despite the broad langauge of the grievance. The limits of the Union's position are confirmed by Ms. Pratt's evidence concerning the grievance meeting and by the subsequent correspondence denying the grievance which is not denied by the Union. In that aspect we are compelled to accept the evidence of Ms. Pratt. The College submits that the Union at this stage is attempting to add to its grievance and that since the grievance as originally filed and later discussed in the grievance procedure did not include the students. This board of arbitration had no power to add to or expand the grievance. The College also maintained that it was in the interest of proper labour relations that matters in ~dispute be discussed in the grievance procedure before the matter was referred to arbitration and that the student issue was not only not discussed but it was specifically excluded from discussions. The Union does not dispute the third step meeting but suggests that the matter be adjourned and that a hearing should be held in which all the issues in dispute between the parties are dealt with. The Union maintains that it is better labour relations that all matters be aired in one arbitration. The College's reply is quite simply that the matter referred to arbitration is narrow in scope and that the board of arbitration, given the explicit evidence has no jurisdiction to consider matters beyond the specific issues referred to. Having regard to the evidence and submissions it is our view that the grievance as filed and as discussed in the grievance procedure was limited and did not include the student issue. Moreover, it is our view that the issue of students was not referred to arbitration and since the work of the students constitutes a separate and distinct issue that this board has no power to amend the grievance to include a distinctively separate issue which was not intended by the original grievance and not discussed in the grievance procedure. Accordingly, while it may be preferable that all issues with respect to the Learning Resource Centre be canvassed before a single board of arbitration, in the particular circumstances of this case we are not prepared to allow the Union to add the separate issue of students to the grievance and a declaration shall be issued to that effect. - 5 - Our determination in that regard is made without prejudice to the Union withdrawing this grievance and filing a separate grievance with respect to all of the issues of concern in the Learning Resources Centre or alternatively filing a separate grievance with respect to the student issue. The matter is to be rescheduled on a date to be determined after consulting with the parties. Dated at Toronto, this llth day of January, 1994. . OWEN SHIME, Q.C., Chairperson D. CAMELETTI, Nominee for the Employer " R. Cochrane" R. COCHRANE, Nominee for the Union